Amazon Cloud Player under fire from music labels

It was only a matter of time before the music labels raised a stink about the Amazon Cloud Player, as the record industry isn’t happy with the retailer giving Android users a “digital locker” for accessing their tunes.

According to Reuters, Amazon didn’t have the required licenses to enable users to stream tracks the way the Cloud Player allows. Basically, the service gives you a certain amount of storage in the cloud that is accessible to stream wherever you are on your specified device.

The problem with that, according to the music industry, is that services like Amazon Cloud Player needs separate licenses to enable this type of service. The online retailer is in the middle of negotiating these deals but it launched the service without securing the rights first. It’s “somewhat stunning,” according to an unnamed music executive.

The Amazon Cloud Player service will be an interesting test for the future of these streaming and digital locker services. Some will argue that it’s silly for record labels to object over companies giving users access to content they’ve already purchased but if that’s the law, then these companies have every right to complain and use legal actions.

It also could pave the way for the looming iTunes in the cloud, which many are expecting to be unveiled at WWDC later this year. Apple does have more clout with the record and movie labels than Amazon but these companies are also wary of giving Apple even more control than it already has.

These issues are going to have to be resolved soon because you can’t stop the cloud. Amazon’s service is already here and it won’t be too long before we see the solution from Apple. Google, the biggest cloud lover out there, will also be rolling out a Google Music service for Android in the not-too-distant future. [Via Reuters]

I honestly don’t see the problem with this. Do Sandisk and other chip manufacturers have to deal with licensing with SD cards? No. It’s just another form of memory management.

Anonymous

Its just music executives being ultra greedy. Cudos to Amazon to have the balls to just do it. Problem with Google though is that unlike Amazon they dont have the rights to any music deals what so ever and cant pull this trick

Anonymous

It is hardly ever just “the law”. I alone could probably argue 3 or 4 different positions on this one issue. I would guess Amazon was trying to negotiate with the music industry out of courtesy, but it’s lawyers really didn’t think they had to, so Steve made the call to go live instead of waiting on negotiations. That would be my guess.

http://www.dainbinder.com Dain Binder

This stuff is getting beyond old. I am not going to purchase a song for every device I listen to music on. If they want, raise the price of the track and be done with it. Then see what happens. When I bought a CD I played it at home, work, car, and even lent to friends. They had not problem with me doing that. Why is it different now?